Health insurance reps call Amendment 69 'naive'

Say ColoradoCares could chase health care providers, businesses from state

Representatives from Colorado Choice Health Plans shared this graphic that shows how health care funding is spent in Colorado during their presentation on ColoradoCares Thursday. Source: National Health Expenditure Accounts, CMS, Office of the Actuary, 2011 and 2013

Find out more

The Logan County Economic Development Corporation (LCEDC) is hosting Freddie Gaudet, Outreach and Coalition Manager of Coloradans for Coloradans, for an informational session on Amendment 69 at 5:30 p.m. Sept. 14 at the Sterling Public Library Community Room.

LCEDC has taken an opposing position to Amendment 69 and encourages business owners and residents to attend the meeting and learn more.

A group of area residents interested in learning more about Amendment 69, the ballot proposal that would introduce a single-payer health care system in Colorado, gathered Thursday morning at the Gary DeSoto Building.

There, representatives of the non-profit insurance company Colorado Choice Health Plans brought their "road show" — a two-hour presentation on the proposed system from a carrier's perspective.

Paul Roberts, senior director of sales and marketing for Colorado Choice, said the intent was to be objective in their presentation, although he noted that the company is against Amendment 69, also referred to as "ColoradoCares."

Roberts explained that the company believes it is important that people in rural parts of the state have as much information on the proposal as possible to make an informed decision in the November election. "This would be a significant turning point in our health care delivery in Colorado. Some of the impact we think we'll see, particularly in the rural areas, is troubling," he said.

Advertisement

He started by explaining the premise behind the proposal, namely that the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) is not working. Proponents of the initiative say the multi-payer system is inefficient and confusing, and charge that insurance companies' administrative costs make up over 30 percent of spending on health care. Roberts said the people who drafted the proposal modeled it after health care delivery in other countries that they think works better than our system.

The proposal is dependent on receiving an innovation waiver under the ACA — which Colorado Choice Senior Account Representative Tammy Niederman said is not guaranteed. It would cover every resident in the state of Colorado (with some exceptions) with a platinum plan that has no deductible.

To fund it, employers would pay a payroll tax of 6.67 percent; employees — including low-wage earners — would contribute 3.33 percent. Self-employed residents would pay 10 percent of their payroll. In addition, all other earned income — such as Social Security, rental income and investments — would also be taxed at 10 percent. The constitutional amendment would raise taxes at least $25 billion per year, and would not be subject to TABOR restrictions, meaning the governing board could choose to raise taxes if funding is not sufficient, according to Niederman.

The plan also relies on the state continuing to receive federal Medicaid funding at levels equal to — or greater than — what it receives today.

Medicare recipients, military members and federal employees would not be covered by the plan, but would pay taxes for it, Niederman said. If approved, it could provide a Medicare supplement for those over 65, but would only cover care within Colorado's borders.

The plan would also take over the medical portion of the workers' compensation system, but not the claims management portion. "You are disrupting a very functional system" by doing that, Niederman said.

ColoradoCares would be governed by a 21-member board, with three representatives elected in each of seven districts around the state, to serve up to two 2-year terms. Once elected, the board members can not be recalled by voters, but can be removed by their fellow board members.

Niederman noted that Amendment 69 is a 10-page document, and encouraged everyone to read it. She contrasted it to the ACA, and recalled Nancy Pelosi's infamous comment about needing to pass the bill to know was in it. There's a lot of unknowns to Amendment 69, she said. "There's not a lot of meat to it."

"This is the exact opposite of (the ACA). Pass it, and then we'll figure out what to put in it," Roberts said.

Niederman called the proposal naive, and raised what happened in Vermont to the voter-approved legislation to create a universal delivery system. The governor eventually threw out that plan due to the cost. As a constitutional amendment, ColoradoCares would be much harder to overturn. Independent analysis of the ColoradoCares plan has projected a significant financial shortfall within four to five years.

The two Colorado Choice representatives raised concerns about the impact on hospitals and physicians, which could lead to fewer health care resources in rural areas. In turn, that lack of access to health care could significantly detract from economic development efforts in those communities.

The tax increase would also have a big impact on small businesses that are exempt from ACA but would have to contribute to ColoradoCares.

The presenters noted that Gov. John Hickenlooper has come out against Amendment 69, citing progress that has been made through ACA and other health care reforms. They called it a step backward, and Niederman said she's concerned that ColoradoCares takes away communities' local control over health care decisions.

Article Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates our ground rules, is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, reckless to the community, etc.

We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.

Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

Our commenting section is self-policing, so if you see a comment that violates our ground rules, flag it (mouse over to the far right of the commenter's name until you see the flag symbol and click that), then we'll review it.